Later On

In my career, I have worked in education (two words: faculty committee), in business (one word: meetings), and in the education business (three words: standardized achievement tests). In all of those environments, I noticed the strange dynamics of meetings and committees: each person generally feels not responsible for the group decisions. When decisions turn out to be bad, somehow it seems each person in the meeting or committee opposed the decision. When the decision turns out well… hmm. I’m not sure. (I’m trying to think of a committee decision that turned out well. I’ll get back to you.)

The problem is that these committees and meetings were mushy. They didn’t have rules and procedures. The power within the organization of the members were widely disparate, and there was no way a relatively weak member could prevail against a powerful member using nothing but rational argument. Always, it seemed, decisions were made based not on the issues at hand and the facts of the case but on long-running organizational battles and maneuvering for power.

So on reading this Reuters story by Mark Hosenball on the process by which Obama decides that an American citizen should be summarily assassinated without benefit of due process, I am concerned. The story begins:

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his “war on terrorism,” is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law,” Ruppersberger said.

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described. . .

Continue reading. It sure sounds to me very like no one is really in charge, no one really knows what’s going on, and no one is taking responsibility. It’s also not clear who argues the defense, who is responsible for making the best case that the assassination should not go forward. And, obviously, keeping everything secret is exactly what would be done if the process is totally corrupt and indefensible. In fact, the more indefensible the process, the more secretive the Obama administration will be. I note that they are being quite secretive inded.

Glenn Greenwald also offers some cogent observations on the direction Obama has taken the government.

So far as I can tell, the actions Obama has taken are utterly indefensible and contrary to the spirit of American jurisprudence—which is why he so rigorously avoids the judicial branch in doing this sort of thing.

Although the logo and main labels are attractive, I know that my shaving readers are obsessed about ingredients, so I show those labels instead.

Krissy sent me these products to try out—she’s experimenting with new formulas—so these are complimentary products. (I normally buy the shaving products I use.)

The pre-shave oil seems to be good, but I still don’t like pre-shave oils in general. I do think this will be excellent for the Oil Pass (see the book), which is where I’ll use it.

The soap gave a fine lather: very small-grained and dense. Provided the basis for a fine shave, which the Pils delivered. Quite a nice soap, in fact.

The balm is a white cream and very nice on the face and skin. I like that one quite a bit and will continue using it.

Altogether, a very nice set of products. My best wishes to Krissy for a good outcome from her surgery.

I liked Ong Bak 3 quite a lot. There was some extreme torture violence, somewhat covered under the mythic cast they gave the story and the movie—and I thought on the whole it worked. Some fantastic fight scenes for those who can persist through the opening violence.

Who fully deserves nice tributes. Here’s one by James Fallows.

I bought enough fresh cayenne pappers to fill a quart after they’re pressed down (and the caps removed). To that I added 4 good-sized ripe jalapeños, enough vinegar (brown-rice vinegar, sherry vinegar, and malt vinegar—mostly the brown-rice vinegar) to almost cover, 1/3 cup sea salt, about 1-2 Tbsp Meyer-lemon olive oil (I had some on hand). Blended well, brought to boil and simmer covered for 20 minutes, and now it’s in the 20-minute cool-down. Then blend again and bottle. I’ll be very interested to see what this one is like.

UPDATE: I went for thick, as you may be able to tell. I tasted it: very smooth, not in your face. Enduring warmth and slow burn, but it doesn’t get terribly hot. The cayenne peppers have a nice taste and I really like their capsaicin attitude. The bottles you may recognize: Bragg’s Vinaigrette bottles. I like the flip-open cap for the pepper sauce.

I now look for bottles of good wine sealed with screw tops. “Good wine” because I still like the good stuff, and “sealed with screw tops” because they’re easier and more convenient. I note that some vinters are beginning to realize that screw cap makes sense and that some very good wines are now bottled this way. And today I used an empty bottle of such wine (rinsed out) to hold a bottle of a good California Riesling (after pouring a small glass for myself) that came in a corked bottle. The screw cap is better if you’re not drinking the entire bottle.

Interesting interview with Robert Lustig, MD, who gave the YouTube talk shown below (and previously blogged). New Scientist has an interview with him that begins:

Your lecture on sugar has been viewed more than 1.6 million times on YouTube. Why do you think it’s had so much attention?

The obesity epidemic just gets worse and people are looking for answers. Diet and exercise don’t work and the idea that obesity is about personal responsibility has come into question. Many people have said sugar is bad, but they didn’t supply the biochemistry. I supplied that.

Do you think fructose – which along with glucose makes table sugar – drives obesity?

I don’t think fructose is the cause of obesity, but I do think it is the thing that takes you from obesity to metabolic syndrome, and that’s where the healthcare dollars go – diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

So the idea that “a calorie is a calorie” is wrong?

As far as I’m concerned that’s how we got into this mess. If a calorie is a calorie, the solution is eat less and exercise more. Except it doesn’t work. And the reason is that fructose is toxic beyond its caloric equivalent, so if you consume it instead of glucose you get more of a negative effect even if the calories are the same. It’s important that people recognise that the quality of our diet also dictates the quantity. In addition, “eat less” is a really crappy message that doesn’t work. “Eat less sugar” is a message that people can get their heads around.

Why do we consume so much sugar? . . .

Continue reading.

The Eldest asked about a recipe for a vitamin-mineral supplement we’ve given to cats. I tracked the recipe down anew and found it in this post on a forum for owners of diabetic cats. Mel posts:

Vita-Mineral Mix

1.5 cups of yeast powder (brewer’s yeast seems to be best enjoyed by the cats)
1/4 cup kelp powder
1 cup lecithin granules
2 cups wheat bran
2 cups bone meal (or calcium lactate or calcium gluconate)

-Mix together and put in covered container in the fridge (must be refrigerated)
-Add 1 teaspoon to each cat’s meal for a total of 2 teaspoons a day.

**This lasts for usually a month or more for 2 cats.**

For added health, each week give your cat orally (either squeeze on food, or (ideally) squeeze into mouth or wipe onto paws/wrists and they’ll lick it off):

-Vit E 400 units (alpha tocopherol, not mixed tocopherols)
-Vit A 10,000 units
-Vit D 400 units

*source: The Natural Cat, by Anitra Frazier

I know that many of you are curious about the raw and homemade diets that are out there for cats, but just don’t have the time, money, or energy to make that sort of leap. I do a lot of reading and have an absolute love for natural health for everyone including my cats and I have a recipe for making a sprinkle topping that you put on your cat’s food at each meal. This works ideally on wet food, but can also be used on dry food too. Every cat that I’ve tried it on loves the taste (they love the smell of brewers yeast) and gobbles it all up.

This sprinkle will help with boosting the protein quality of their current food, add much needed vitamins and minerals to their diet, and help to emulsify fatty wastes in their diet so that their weight can begin to become a little more regulated, plus their fur will start to become silky smooth.

Just mix the ingredients in a tub, put in the fridge and sprinkle on their food at meal time. It’s a nice gradual step towards improving their nutrition without having to commit to a full overhaul.

I would probably also give them a weekly capsule of wild salmon oil (squirted onto food or paw).

UPDATE: I just realized that Amazon offers their “Search Inside” feature for the book, so you can search on “vita-mineral” and see the formula in the book. Also, the formula is sold ready-to-go.

Martin de Candre has an interesting effect: I don’t want to use another soap. This one suits me just fine. I remember that I haven’t used the Wee Scot for a while, so I decided to see how it does with MdC soap. Just fine: terrific lather immediately, then loads of lather for the comfortable 3-pass shave—this morning with the Feather premium stainless holding a Feather blade. This razor and blade together are an awesome shaving machine: extremely comfortable to the point of feeling mild, but the stubble falls away immediately, as though it were aggressive. Very strange, but very satisfying.

A splash of Saint Charles Shave Menthol Blue Line and I’m back in business.

For those who wonder about The Shave Den pre-shave balm, which I liked, ordered, and have not used: Joanna wrote to tell me that the new batch of shea butter she used most recently has a significantly lower melting point than the previous batch, so that the balm stays liquid at room temperature. This explains the little spill I had in opening it. (No harm done: pants will wash and chair is leather and doubtless loved the treatment.) She’s sending me a new jar, no charge, made with shea butter of a higher melting point. I’m eager to give it another go and will report.

One problem with the corporate takeover of the Federal government is that the government is now in no position to regulate businesses and punish them for their misdeeds: both the Executive and Legislative branch seem paralyzed at the thought of losing access to the money flow, so they keep quiet and let companies do what they want—that permission is what the companies are buying with their contributions. Here’s a clear example in the mortgage foreclosure “actions”, reported by Paul Kiel for ProPublica:

Why has the administration’s flagship foreclosure prevention program been so ineffective in helping struggling homeowners get loan modifications and stay in their homes? One reason: The government’s supervision of the program has apparently ranged from nonexistent to weak.

Documents obtained by ProPublica – government audit reports of GMAC, the country’s fifth largest mortgage servicer – provide the first detailed look at the program’s oversight. They show that the company operated with almost no oversight for the program’s first eight months. When auditors did finally conduct a major review more than a year into the program, they found that GMAC had seriously mishandled many loan modifications – miscalculating homeowner income in more than 80 percent of audited cases, for example. Yet GMAC suffered no penalty. GMAC itself said it hasn’t reversed a single foreclosure as a result of a government audit.

The documents also reveal that government auditors signed off on GMAC loan-modification denials that appear to violate the program’s own rules, calling into question the rigor and competence of the reviews.

Some of the auditors’ mistakes are “appalling,” said Diane Thompson of the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group. “It suggests the government isn’t taking the auditing process seriously.”

In a written response to ProPublica questions, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which runs the program, denied there were serious flaws in its oversight system, calling it “effective and unprecedented in many ways.”

The audits of GMAC, though revealing, give only a limited view into the program, because the Treasury has refused to release the documents for other servicers. For more than a year, ProPublica has sought the audits for ten of the largest program participants through a Freedom of Information Act request. The Treasury provided only GMAC’s audits, because the company consented to their release. ProPublica continues to seek all of the reports.

Abuses of the foreclosure process, in which banks and mortgage servicers cut corners or even created false documents to move trouble borrowers out of their homes, have been extensively documented, along with failures by government to regulate the industry. But the lapses revealed in the documents obtained by ProPublica stand out because they occurred within the government’s main effort to prevent foreclosures, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. . .

Continue reading. There’s much more, including some useful links.

A couple of weeks ago, I realized that with the 5th edition published and the big push for that completed, I was drifting a bit: skimming instead of sinking into stuff.

I have a natural review point: every two weeks, when the cleaning ladies spruce up the apartment. I could identify goals and projects too big for a day for each two-week period.

The ladies arrive tomorrow, and I’m no rushing about doing the things I was going to do over the past two weeks. I have culled the identified bookcases, with two boxes of books now in the car, to be delivered to the library.

I’m now tackling a chapter in my Spanish text book. And I’m making resolutions on how to handle the next two weeks.

Interesting summary of findings and defenses by Lois Beckett for ProPublica:

Bloomberg has published an in-depth investigation into business practices at Koch Industries, run by politically influential brothers Charles and David Koch. The story lays out what it suggests is a decades-long pattern of illegal and unethical behavior at Koch.

Both Bloomberg’s story and Koch’s official response are long and full of complicated details, and it’s not easy to untangle it all. Here’s our guide to what seem to be the newest, most significant allegations.

Undisputed: Koch’s subsidiaries in Europe got contracts through bribes in at least six countries.

In 2008, in the wake of a $1.6 billion settlement by the German engineering giant Siemens for bribing officials around the world, Koch conducted an internal investigation of its own payment practices. The company found that its France-based affiliate, Koch-Glitsch, had paid illegal bribes to secure contracts in India, Africa and the Middle East, including bribes to government officials, a practice banned by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In response, Koch fired several employees and sales agents, including the business director of Koch-Glitsch France.

Disputed: Was Koch’s response sufficient?

According to Bloomberg’s analysis of French court documents, Koch failed to hold higher-level officials accountable for the bribery payments. Koch said Koch-Glitsch’s president for Europe and Asia “had no knowledge” of the misconduct. Koch also ended up firing the ethics manager who first conducted its investigation, and French labor courts upheld the firing as fair.

Context: Many corporations make bribes — and pay fines for breaking the law.

Many large companies have been investigated for bribery of foreign officials, includingHewlett-Packard and Motorola. The U.S. has recently stepped up its enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including a preliminary investigation this year into whether News Corp. may have violated the act. A recent survey of business executives found that only 30 percent were “very confident” that their existing policies would prevent bribery.

Undisputed: Koch’s European subsidiary sold petrochemical equipment to Iran, which seems to be perfectly legal. . . 

Continue reading.

Eric Holder seems to have a truth problem. For example, he released a statement that the DOJ would not pursue cases against patients and caregivers who are using medical marijuana in accordance with state laws. It turned out that he was not telling the truth: DOJ officials have continued aggressive action against medical marijuana patients.

He said during his confirmation hearings that he would investigate instances of wrong-doing in the US treatment of prisoners and detainees in the War on Terror, including credible allegations of torture. That turned out to be false.

And then he told Congress that he hadn’t been informed of the Fast and Furious gun-smuggling debacle until quite recently. Emails that have surfaced show that, once again, he is lying.

I don’t think the US Attorney General should lie so much.

From time to time a shaver will show a nifty razor/brush rack that he made from wire coat hangers. Some of these are quick slick. If you’re inclined to go in that direction, take a look at the Handi-Bender Wire Tool, which greatly facilitates working with the wire. At $12.75 it could pay for itself in just a few projects.

My shaving book has a lengthy vendor list to help shavers find the best buys. The range can be surprising.

A guy on Wicked_Edge is putting together a gift set for his father, and he’s decided on the Feather premium stainless razor—a good choice, given not only the razor’s quality but also its presentation in the precisely crafted wooden box, the folded cut-paper wrapping, and so on: a gift waiting to happen.

I was suggesting a brush to go along with it, and remembered the G.B. Kent BK4, a terrific gift brush. It is not only a fine silvertip, it also has a terrific presentation, though of a British rather than Japanese style. So I looked up a vendor so I could send him a link. I found two rather easily:

One sells the brush for $70 + shipping; the other sells the same brush for $180 + shipping.

Bottom line: look around before buying.

This recipe sounds both easy and tasty. The chips are roasted, not fried. Ingredients:

1 pound sweet potatoes, peeled
2 tablespoons olive oil, plus more for greasing the pan
Salt
1 teaspoon cumin
1 pound fresh tomatillos, husked, cored, and chopped
1⁄2 large white onion or 3 or 4 scallions, chopped
1 teaspoon minced garlic, or to taste
Minced fresh hot chile (like jalapeño, Thai, or less of habanero), red chile flakes, or cayenne, to taste
1⁄2 cup chopped fresh cilantro or parsley
Juice of 2 limes
Black pepper

I had to try it again, and once more got a wonderful lather, this time with the Mühle silvertip, quite a soft and fluffy brush. But once again: instant, thick, Creamy Lather. This is a good soap.

We had been talking about the Feather stainless premium razor at Wicked_Edge, so I decided to use that. Very fine shave, and as I put it away after the shave, I was surprised to see open comb: I thought the Feather was a straight bar. Oh: I had picked up the iKon OSS next to it, and used that instead. They do look somewhat alike, and of course it’s still early. Great shave though.

The Avocado Oil balm is quite nice for you balm-oriented guys. I suspect it would also be very nice as an aftershave treatment for women who shave their legs.

For the partners of shavers who might be reading this: seriously consider Martin de Candre shaving soap as a (substantial) gift to the shaver. It is a terrific soap and something he might not buy for himself (because of the shipping costs, mainly). This is not a hint: I suspect that the jar I have will last out the decade. It’s just seems like ideal gift fodder for a shaver.

James Fallows in his blog at the Atlantic:

. . . The ceremony at the Constitution Center [in Philadelphia] was in honor of Robert Gates, who received the Liberty Medal for his service at the Pentagon and the CIA. In his relatively brief speech, Gates made a point of surprising bluntness that has remarkable force considering the times and events he has lived through. He was talking about the state of American self-government, and he said:

I do believe that we are now in uncharted waters when it comes to the dysfunction in our political system–and it is no longer a joking matter.

It appears that as a result of several long-building, polarizing trends in American politics and culture, we have lost the ability to execute even the basic functions of government [debt ceiling, appropriations, infrastructure-maintenance - JF] much less solve the most difficult and divisive problems facing the country [you name it].

Thus, I am more concerned than I have ever been about the state of American governance.

You can read a PDF of the speech or see a video of Gates delivering it. The only real coverage of it I saw was in Philly.com by Steve Frank of the Constitution Center.

I don’t agree with every single thing Robert Gates has done and said through his public career, but I agree with most of it. I specifically recognize how carefully he has always chosen his public words. Many times in this space I’ve noted his impressive speeches as Secretary of Defense, for instance thisand this. For such a person to say plainly that the American government has lost its basic ability to function, and that he is more concerned than he has ever been about this issue is … well, it’s worth more notice than it’s received so far. . .

Sounds as though Pakistan’s intelligence service ISI realized some time back that it could take a participatory role: not just gather intelligence about what the US is doing, but start buying its own US politicians so it can shape what the US does. Clearly taking a cue from how big business courts and then controls its stable of politicians, ISI developed their own, as reported in Pro Publica by Kim Barker, Habiba Nosheen, and Raheel Khursheed:

The night should have been a coup for Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai. Once a poor villager from halfway around the world, Fai had become the go-to man in Washington, D.C., for his cause, Kashmir, the Himalayan region long caught in a tug of war between Pakistan and India.

And there he was on March 4, 2010, hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who had been the chief supporter in Congress of Fai’s Kashmiri American Council for 20 years. In some ways, the event inside Fai’s home in Fairfax, Va., symbolized everything that Fai had become, featuring speeches in the living room and kebabs and curries in the basement.

But it barely camouflaged how Fai’s carefully built world was collapsing.

The FBI was monitoring almost every move Fai made, every email he sent, every call he received. Investigators believed Fai’s main donors were not well-meaning idealists but members of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, the most powerful of Pakistan’s spy agencies.

Within weeks, the Justice Department would send Fai a letter of warning. Within months, he would be pulled over by New York police with $35,000 in cash in his car. And by the next year, Fai would be arrested, the unlikely central character in a scheme by a foreign government to pay more than $4 million to sway U.S. politicians and policy on Kashmir, the Justice Department says.

Fai’s tale of rags to riches to arrest this summer is a lesson in how easy it is to win influence in Washington. Fai mingled with some of America’s top politicians, meeting former President Bill Clinton and drawing as many as 32 members of Congress to his annual conference on Kashmir. Fai’s access to power illustrates an issue that could become even more significant in this election cycle: foreign money illegally coming into U.S. political campaigns.

But the case, the first known criminal prosecution of its kind, could also involve much more. It is unfolding at a particularly sour moment in the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, once a key ally in the war on terror. Fai’s alleged accomplice, Zaheer Ahmad, is a prominent Pakistani-American who runs one of the nicest hospitals in Pakistan. The FBI has reportedly questioned at least one person about Ahmad’s ties to a Pakistani nuclear scientist who once met with Osama bin Laden.

To the Indian media, FBI and Justice Department, Fai had long denied being an agent of Pakistan. That changed the day he was arrested. Then, the FBI says, he told an agent that for 15 years, the ISI had funneled money to him and directed him to attend certain conferences and even to report back on certain people. . .

Continue reading.

Very interesting result showing once again that life is more complicated than we tend to think, and that the nature/nurture question is too simple-minded: if what we eat alters the expression of our genes, the picture gets blurry as to which is responsible.

New Scientist now seems to be allowing free registration, so if you register, you should be able to read the rest of this article by Ferris Jabr:

Editorial: ”The good news about how food tweaks our genes“

CONSIDER the Brussels sprout: small, unassuming and ostensibly good for you. This is no mere side dish. A landmark study suggests that this dinky member of the cabbage family – along with rice, broccoli and possibly all the plants you eat – changes the behaviour of your genes in ways that are new to science.

In what is the strongest evidence yet that the genetic material in food survives digestion and circulates through the body, fragments of plant RNA have been found swimming in the bloodstreams of people and cows. What’s more the study by Chen-Yu Zhang of Nanjing University in China and his colleagues shows that some of these plant RNAs muffle gene expression and raise cholesterol levels in mice. The discovery opens up a new way to turn food into medicine: we may be able to design plants that change our genes for the better.

The genetic material in question is microRNA – tiny strands of RNA between 19 and 24 “letters” or nucleotides long. It is found in almost all cells with a nucleus and travels from cell to cell in the blood. Zhang and his colleagues wondered whether all the miRNA strands in our blood are made by our cells – or whether some comes from our food instead.

To begin, the team drew . . .

Continue reading.